Rush guarantees millions of more votes for Obama

[Bro. Curtis]

C.T.Boy has called me a racist and a bigot, never explained either one, and never apologized. Now he wants me to be as upset as he is.

Hogwash. Take the beam out of your own eye, then maybe I'll listen to you about someone else.

This election will be about issues, no matter this "righteous indignation" he is feigning.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I finally heard the entire snippet of Rush's conversation. He never actually called THAT WOMAN a slut or a prostitute. He was speaking in general about her efforts in a testimony before Congress where she was asking for the government or insurance funding of birth control pills as an unmarried young lady.

In speaking about "her efforts as an unmarried woman" he was speaking about her.

I realize that you believe that Rush is telling the truth about what Sandra Fluke said, but she made NO EFFORTS to ask Congress for free birth control as an unmarried woman. She NEVER MENTIONED her marital status nor did she speak about her own personal desire for birth control.

Here's a transcript of what she actually said.

Sandra Fluke's Testimony Transcript

The presumption is that she needs the birth control pills BECAUSE she is having sex. There is no need for them otherwise, except for some women-oriented hormonal deficiency that required the use of the pill to regulate cycles of some such use (at times it happens). She gave no indication of that. The context was protection from pregnancy which can ONLY mean sexual activity.

She never gave a reason for her wanting birth control. She never said if she were married or single. Hormone deficiency to regulate the cycle? Yes, that's just ONE of the reasons why women use birth control other than for pregnancy prevention. Do some study on this, brother.

So, Rush's ACTUAL point was this: This woman wants to be paid to have sex (essentially her argument, she wants someone else to pay for the product that allows her to have sexual relations apart from marriage).

Does it really matter what his point was when it was based on a lie or at the very least a purposeful and cruel misrepresentation of what she actually said? She NEVER said that she wanted someone else to pay for her immoral sexual behavior. She never said that. She never implied that.

"Women who ask for pay for sex are sluts and prostitutes." That is what Rush said. He never said, "YOU ARE A SLUT AND A PROSTITUTE." He said, "Women who ask for pay for sex are sluts and prostitutes."

By your words, you said that he was speaking of "her efforts as an unmarried woman" to get free birth control. Ergo, he was talking to her.

Sandra Fluke NEVER asked for payment for sex.

And by-the-by, what are the vulgar, cheap, and destructive names akin to "sl*t" and about 25 other foul words for women that are used to trash men who PAY for the sex? There would be no prostitute on the street corner (supply) if there were no men looking for them (demand). What names are you and Rush going to call the multiple men that you assume that Sandra Fluke is having sex with? If he is going to call her and women like her prostitutes and you are going to agree with him then by definition of the word prostitute - the two of you must be assuming that all unmarried women who are on birth control are having sex with multiple men.

What is your demeaning and purposefully hurtful name and Rush's name for all of the men having sex with all of these "sl*ts"?

What demeaning and purposefully hurtful words are we going to call the men who sleep around to draw attention to their immoral sexual behavior and to throw a cloud of shame over them and to cause society to shun them?

I'm just asking.

Of course, as is the case here on the board in virtually every debate, someone picks up on the two objectionable words and runs with them... "YOU called me a heretic..." etc. Response, "No, your DOCTRINE is heretical..." With Rush, the outcry was, "YOU called that woman a slut and a prostitute..." No, he actually said, "Women who expect pay for sex are called sluts and prostitutes."

And in his role as a self-important town cryer and comedian and entertainer, what makes you believe him when he says that unmarried women who are on birth control (for WHATEVER the reason) are asking to be paid for sex? My reading comprehension is pretty doggone good and every time I read her testimony - I don't see where she was asking to be paid for sex. I don't even see where she was talking about her own private sex life or lack thereof.

Different argument entirely, and for the record, Rush is precisely correct. Women who ask for pay for sex are indeed sluts and prostitutes. You can find that referenced in the Bible, albeit not the "slut" word, which is modern slang, but certainly the prostitute word.

Brother, let me tell you that as a woman who has been called a "sl*t" and "tramp" - unjustly, I might add, the words are NOT slang. "Golly gee whiz" - now that's slang.

But all of the dozens of cruel and sexually vulgar words to use as a substitute for the Biblical word prostitute are hurtful. These modern words and you know what they all are - don't have the same intention as the Bible had when using the word "whore" or "prostitute". These "slang" words are intended cause personal harm - to get *gasp* from the hearers, to be used profanely, to ruin a reputation, bring shame, disgrace, and force all of the responsibility for the morality of society on a girl or woman. These words take the culpability for immorality off of a man because he is never called any names like this.

I was called those two words above because I refused to sleep with a young man in college due to my religious beliefs. I got called the names nonetheless. When I was on the experimental contraceptives to relieve symptoms that normally would have required surgery 20 years ago, I told a few people about it and dear female friend said whisperingly thinking she was giving me sage advice, "Don't tell people that. They will call you names. You aren't married." It was all I could do not to roll my eyes.

I cannot find - in the Bible - even ONE instance where a particular woman was called a whore in the same vein as women are called whores by modern society.

Yes, the word whore is in the Bible. The closest I can find where it is used as a name for a particular women is where Rahab is called a harlot.

If someone else can find in the Bible where a particular woman was called a whore, I'd like to study that passage. I know that I might have missed something somewhere.

Brother, just read what Sandra Fluke actually said and you will see that she was not revealing anything about herself nor was she asking to be paid for sex.

Do I agree with her presentation? Not all of it. Was she a political pawn in a old game some are feigning as new? Of course she was. Was the President's calling her to apologize ridiculous? Yes. Does that make what Rush said less wrong? No.

But she did make some sense.

 

[InTheLight]

He never actually called THAT WOMAN a slut or a prostitute.

It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

He was speaking in general about her efforts in a testimony before Congress where she was asking for the government or insurance funding of birth control pills as an unmarried young lady.

Her marital status was never divulged. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

The presumption is that she needs the birth control pills BECAUSE she is having sex.

It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

The context was protection from pregnancy which can ONLY mean sexual activity.

Yes, she mentioned a married friend of hers that was using the pill as contraception. She never said anything about her own situation.

It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

So, Rush's ACTUAL point was this: This woman wants to be paid to have sex (essentially her argument, she wants someone else to pay for the product that allows her to have sexual relations apart from marriage).

She never said anything about her own situation. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

"Women who ask for pay for sex are sluts and prostitutes." That is what Rush said. He never said, "YOU ARE A SLUT AND A PROSTITUTE." He said, "Women who ask for pay for sex are sluts and prostitutes."

Yet there was only one woman, who's marital status or reason for needing the pill was not offered in Fluke's testimony. We don't know why she wanted the pill or whether or not she was married. Yet Rush can deduce that she's a slut. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

No, he actually said, "Women who expect pay for sex are called sluts and prostitutes."

Yes, and there were no women (explicitly identified as being unmarried) that were mentioned as needing the pill for sex.

Different argument entirely, and for the record, Rush is precisely correct. Women who ask for pay for sex are indeed sluts and prostitutes.

Too bad there were no (unmarried) women explicitly mentioned in Fluke's testimony that needed the pill for sex reasons. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

 

[saturneptune]

Rush Limbaugh is nothing but pure trash. Liberal and conservative has nothing to do with it. Trash is trash.

 

[NiteShift]

LINK

"Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

"As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

"However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law"

 

[glfredrick]

ALWAYS more to the story when the Left parades an "innocent victim" before America... :tonofbricks:

They CULTIVATE these "innocent victims" then use them to create an emotional stir in the general populace as a means to further gain a foothold in their political machinations.

I can name dozens of others who have done likewise, from Anita Hill onward.

 

[glfredrick]

It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.
Her marital status was never divulged. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.
It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.
Yes, she mentioned a married friend of hers that was using the pill as contraception. She never said anything about her own situation.
It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.
She never said anything about her own situation. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.
Yet there was only one woman, who's marital status or reason for needing the pill was not offered in Fluke's testimony. We don't know why she wanted the pill or whether or not she was married. Yet Rush can deduce that she's a slut. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.
Yes, and there were no women (explicitly identified as being unmarried) that were mentioned as needing the pill for sex.
Too bad there were no (unmarried) women explicitly mentioned in Fluke's testimony that needed the pill for sex reasons. It is called innuendo. Rush is the master of it.

See link below... Rush is seldom completely wrong about what he says, though the way he says it often combines humor and indeed, innuendo, as well as sarcasm and baiting, in order to gain a hearing and preserve his spot as the NUMBER ONE talk radio host.

I take it that you and others seriously dislike Rush, and that is fine. You are free to turn to all the Liberal talk radio hosts out there... Whoops, my bad... Not so many, huh, and the one or two that are out there are so horrific that even liberals don't really like them. :love2: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[NiteShift]

ALWAYS more to the story when the Left parades an "innocent victim" before America...

Correct. And then the president calls "to see if she is ok".
Cahoots anyone?

 

[glfredrick]

This deserves a response, but becuse of the length of the post I didn't have a chance to get back to it. so here goes.

In speaking about "her efforts as an unmarried woman" he was speaking about her.

I realize that you believe that Rush is telling the truth about what Sandra Fluke said, but she made NO EFFORTS to ask Congress for free birth control as an unmarried woman. (SNIP)

Further evidence about Ms. Fluke (pronouced like "duck" -- intentionally I would suppose in order to force people to have to "almost" say THAT word) demonstrates that she is OTHER than what was presented to the American public when paraded before Congress. Turns out she is a KNOWN LIBERAL ACTIVIST.

So, since SHE has not "really" told the truth, and INDEED has an agenda that she has been working on for years, I am fairly well convinced that she ought not be ALL that upset at Rush's take on her. She may well indeed be precisely what some THINK that Rush called her, albeit, he called the GENERAL ACTIONS OF WOMEN WHO DO SEX FOR MONEY by those terms, something that we would all agree upon, for those who do that are indeed sluts and prostitutes.

Care to retract some of what you suppose about me now?

She never gave a reason for her wanting birth control. She never said if she were married or single. Hormone deficiency to regulate the cycle? Yes, that's just ONE of the reasons why women use birth control other than for pregnancy prevention. Do some study on this, brother.

If you go back and re-read my post that cause this response, you will see that I have ALREADY BEEN THERE concerning some of the other issues that birth control pills are used for.

You are actually quite sexist in your remarks, in that you feel that because I am a man that I could not possibly understand WOMEN'S reproductive issues, including birth control. You would be wrong, and I resent the fact that you believe SIMPLY BECAUSE I AM A MAN that I cannot nor could not understand these issues. I actually understand them VERY WELL -- well enough that I can coach women in the use, understanding, lack of use, what to use, when to use, and the various reasons why.

I come by my knowledge from several areas. First, I am a well-married man, who has been with the same wife for 34 years in marriage and an additional 4 years of dating. I started dating my bride to be when she was 14 and I was 15. I have been with her through a LOT of women's issues, from her first use of any birth control means, through multiple miscarriages, through the death of our second son at birth, through tubal ligation, through use of the pill to regulate difficult cycles, and finally, through periomenopause and menopause. From that very practical experience, I have learned from my own wife the issues that she has faced, but there is more. In order to be the best husband I could be, I have also spent countless hours in study of women's issues. I am equipped in this regard at about the level of a physician's assistant and have read multitudes of volumes on the subject. I know what is happening, why it is happening, where it happens, and what happens when it doesn't happen. Second, I have had multiple experiences with couples who could not concieve through my pastoral experience. I have been with them, wept with them, studied with them, and prayed with them when they could not bear a child. I have seen first hand (literally) how doctors attempt to treat these issues and I have been there when they have failed, either through miscarriage or through a final resignation that there will never be a child in that marriage, through the process of adoption and assimilation into the family of a child from other parents. Third, I have been with a good number of women who have made the choice to abort a baby. I have seen how that activity ruins a woman's body, and more so, her spirit, for in her heart -- all medical hogwash aside -- she KNOWS that she has killed her baby and will never be the same after the event. There is more to this than what I have written here, including post-abortion issues with later conception (see above) and with some of the cancers that are triggered in women because of the abrupt end of the natural pregnancy cycle. And, fourth, I have watched as society has changed around me BECAUSE of the issue of contraceptive devices. Enough said about that, but it is worthy of a dissertation!

Does it really matter what his point was when it was based on a lie or at the very least a purposeful and cruel misrepresentation of what she actually said? (SNIP)

What was actually said and what was actually true are two different issues. As per usual, Rush jumped to the head of the line and his insticts -- again -- have proven correct.

She HAD an agenda, and it did not include marriage and it DID include sex. The simple pronoucement of her name is one of the things that tip people who are observant off about such things. No one, who is as clean as the dew in the morning -- which IS what most who are SO upset about Rush's comments are implying about Ms. Fluke -- would EVER pronouce a name that ought to rhyme with Luke as instead a rhyme with "duck" unless that person was INTENTIONALLY SEXUAL in their intent.

(SNIP) And by-the-by, what are the vulgar, cheap, and destructive names akin to "sl*t" and about 25 other foul words for women that are used to trash men who PAY for the sex? There would be no prostitute on the street corner (supply) if there were no men looking for them (demand). What names are you and Rush going to call the multiple men that you assume that Sandra Fluke is having sex with? If he is going to call her and women like her prostitutes and you are going to agree with him then by definition of the word prostitute - the two of you must be assuming that all unmarried women who are on birth control are having sex with multiple men.

I have already agreed that there is a double standard involved. That is common knowledge! That does not make it right, but it is!

And, again, other than some physical reason, already spoken of above and elsewhere, WHAT OTHER REASON IS THERE FOR AN UNMARRIED WOMAN TO NEED BIRTH CONTROL?

I realize that you feel hurt and betrayed as a woman -- often put down by men and by society -- as it has been almost throughout human history (and in fact, in former ages you could not even speak of what and how you have spoken here without severe repurcussions!) -- but I am not one of the ones putting down women in that fashion. I WILL call women what they are, as well as men what they are -- fornicators, vile sinners, and unless in a one-flesh marriage against the will of God (except for that rare occurance when one is gifted by God to be a single).

I have no other assumption to make than that UNMARRIED WOMEN who NEED birth control, need it because they are sexually active. All circumstances point directly to that conclusion, like it or not.

Question back at you... How many unmarried women do you know who are 30 years of age who have never had sexual relations? How many are there as a percentage of American society? And, no, I am NOT trying to dodge the issue here. That IS the issue, and that IS the reason that free birth control means are desired.

I was called those two words above because I refused to sleep with a young man in college due to my religious beliefs. I got called the names nonetheless. When I was on the experimental contraceptives to relieve symptoms that normally would have required surgery 20 years ago, I told a few people about it and dear female friend said whisperingly thinking she was giving me sage advice, "Don't tell people that. They will call you names. You aren't married." It was all I could do not to roll my eyes. (SNIP)

I am truly sorry. The fault is not yours, but his. As for what "society" would call you for the use of the pill for some of those "other reasons" that we all acknowledge, they could only know if you -- or your pharmacist -- told them. Some things are best kept quiet for one's own good, and that includes a lot of what happens in the adult sexual life, especially the marriage bed (or lack thereof). We call that behavior, directed toward another human being created in God's image SIN. The young man will either have to pay for his sin or the Lord will have to pay for his sin, either way someone WILL pay.

I cannot find - in the Bible - even ONE instance where a particular woman was called a whore in the same vein as women are called whores by modern society. (SNIP)

If someone else can find in the Bible where a particular woman was called a whore, I'd like to study that passage. I know that I might have missed something somewhere.

If you will note, one of the followers of Jesus was actually a prostitute (and the words are synonyms). Whore is a vulgar expression used in disdain for a "profession" that is, seemingly, as old as humankind, and yet the ones most apt to use the term are also the ones most apt to frequent the services of such women. Again, the term is SIN. Why any of us are actually surprised when sinful people sin is beyond me, but in fact, they do, and it harms all of us, eventually, if only that we KNOW that our Lord may eventually have to pay.

In Corinthians, Paul deals with issues among the Corinthian people where similar words are used.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Interesting comments from both sides. Howevrer the point of the OP is that Rush's comments are going to cost the Republican candidate lots of votes from independent women. Rush handed Obama a huge gift.

 

[Scarlett O.]

This deserves a response, but becuse of the length of the post I didn't have a chance to get back to it. so here goes.

Brother, you took my post personally and that was not how I intended it.

I did not mean to imply that you had no knowledge of women's health issues. You said that hormone regulation was the only other reason why an unmarried woman would take birth control. I merely told you to study that.

I understand that Sandra Fluke was there - testifying before Congress - for political gain/reasons and not out of any altruistic motivations that she might have been feigning.

I get that.

I get that the left does the same thing in regard to Republican women and minorities. But we as Republicans ALL agree that this is bad and wrong.

What has bothered me so much about this is the fact that there are conservative Republican Christian people on this very BB in years past who hang on every word Rush Limbaugh says. Many people across the country believe, both left and right, that Rush speaks for the Republican Party and conservative people. What makes me angry is the amount of conservative people who AGREE with all the trash-talk he makes against all kinds of people.

He doesn't speak for me as a Republican conservative woman. That's what gets me so irate. That people will believe the trash talk that comes from his mouth without fact checking.

The one-liners he gives that are vulgar, risque, racist, sexist, and ignorant shouldn't be allowed to be the mantra of the Republican Party.

 

[glfredrick]

Rush is Rush, just like all the guys on MSNBC are who they are, and just like Cloris Leachman, famous Hollyweird actress called Sarah Palin a slut, and like Bill Maher called her a c***. And Sarah is rather happily married and is obviously none of the above.

That is the way things go in the media.

As far as people hanging on Rush's every word, not in any world I have seen. Yes, he is the most listened to talk radio host in the nation, but his audience is also capable -- just like liberals -- of thinking for themselves, and they, of course, do.

I expect that some of your personal pain is driving this conversation, and for good reasons. I'm not wanting to be another one that piles on. I have to deal with too many women in your shoes on a regular basis. I keep the box of kleenex on my desk. But, as a word of encouragement, realize that dishing back out won't help your inner hurt, even though they may inadvertently say or do something that triggers a serious response in you.

I have similar issues that stem from some of my pre-Christian addictions. I see evidence every day that either infuriates me or works to draw me back to those addictions, and I don't like it, but the AWESOME thing in Christ is forgiveness -- which is NOT a free pass for those who sin against us and against God -- but which IS our letting go of the issue so that God can handle it in HIS own way, which is always the perfect way.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Rush is Rush, just like all the guys on MSNBC are who they are, and just like Cloris Leachman, famous Hollyweird actress called Sarah Palin a slut, and like Bill Maher called her a c***. And Sarah is rather happily married and is obviously none of the above.

That is the way things go in the media.

As far as people hanging on Rush's every word, not in any world I have seen. Yes, he is the most listened to talk radio host in the nation, but his audience is also capable -- just like liberals -- of thinking for themselves, and they, of course, do.

I expect that some of your personal pain is driving this conversation, and for good reasons. I'm not wanting to be another one that piles on. I have to deal with too many women in your shoes on a regular basis. I keep the box of kleenex on my desk. But, as a word of encouragement, realize that dishing back out won't help your inner hurt, even though they may inadvertently say or do something that triggers a serious response in you.

I have similar issues that stem from some of my pre-Christian addictions. I see evidence every day that either infuriates me or works to draw me back to those addictions, and I don't like it, but the AWESOME thing in Christ is forgiveness -- which is NOT a free pass for those who sin against us and against God -- but which IS our letting go of the issue so that God can handle it in HIS own way, which is always the perfect way.

Thank you.

 

[InTheLight]

She HAD an agenda, and it did not include marriage and it DID include sex.

Mind reading is a skill I wish I had.

The simple pronoucement of her name is one of the things that tip people who are observant off about such things. No one, who is as clean as the dew in the morning -- which IS what most who are SO upset about Rush's comments are implying about Ms. Fluke -- would EVER pronouce a name that ought to rhyme with Luke as instead a rhyme with "duck" unless that person was INTENTIONALLY SEXUAL in their intent.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Interesting comments from both sides. Howevrer the point of the OP is that Rush's comments are going to cost the Republican candidate lots of votes from independent women. Rush handed Obama a huge gift.

Actually, you calling Rush "evil", and your insistance that everyone denounce him kinda changed the subject.

My take is Rush's name-calling is as disgusting as yours is.

 

[glfredrick]

Mind reading is a skill I wish I had.



Wow. Just wow.

We now know much more about the woman.

Turns out I was right.

Did you not chase this down?

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance

"Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

"As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

"However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law"

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Looks like this is a story without a good guy.

 

[InTheLight]

We now know much more about the woman.

Turns out I was right.

Did you not chase this down?

I saw it. Where does it say that she personally was after birth control to have unmarried sex? Where does it say that she pronounces her name in the way you allege to be provocative?

 

[glfredrick]

I saw it. Where does it say that she personally was after birth control to have unmarried sex? Where does it say that she pronounces her name in the way you allege to be provocative?

Now you are either being deliberately naive or deliberately ignorant. Which is it?

Altruistic all of a sudden? You didn't seem so altruistic when speaking out against someone you dislike...

 

[InTheLight]

Now you are either being deliberately naive or deliberately ignorant. Which is it?

Neither. I'm being accurate.

You say she was asking for birth control so she could have unmarried s$x and then you say she pronounces her name to be provocative and then you smugly post "Turns out I was right" and cite an article. Reading the article does not support your assertion, thus my questions.